= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1329)
For example, consider this exchange:
Me: Sure; also there is hearsay documentary evidence (the Bible) and apparently even some scientific studies which supposedly demonstrate the power of prayer.
But by what standard do you reject such evidence?
You: Rejecting an interpretation of the evidence != rejecting evidence
Me: :shrug: By what standard do you evaluate this evidence so as to reach your atheistic conclusion notwithstanding this evidence for the existence of God?
It's pretty obvious in this context what it means to "reject evidence," but you chose an interpretation which let you avoid the question. i.e. you were evasive.
Anyway, I didn't make an issue out of your evasiveness until somebody made an issue out of the length of our exchange.
Indeed, and that context happens to include this question preceding the first one you quoted there:
which implies that you thought there was a significant chance that I didn't believe there was evidence of God. (Otherwise, why would you have bothered asking?) So when you subsequently implied that I 'reject such evidence' of God, it was quite reasonable to interpret it as literally just that - rejecting the evidence qua evidence - because you had just implied that you were open to the possibility that I denied evidence of God in general.
That's nice.
Lol, you are being silly. We had both agreed that the evidence exists and then I asked why you rejected it. It was completely obvious what I meant.
You seem to be writing as if acknowledging the existence of evidence and rejecting evidence are mutually exclusive. Perhaps that is how you understand acknowledging that evidence exists v. rejecting evidence, but that's a new understanding to me.
Apparently not.
Please either show me where I made such an implication by QUOTING me or admit I implied no such thing. Thank you.
I could be mistaken, but I think I already did.
Yes you are mistaken. If we both agree to X, it would make no sense for me to ask, in essence, why you believe in ~X.
I'm not asserting that you asked me if I believed there was no evidence of God (which is the ~X you have in mind, as far as I can tell). I'm asserting that you asked me whether I rejected evidence of God.
A second thing. It's plain to me that at this point this argument is capable of going around in circles forever (if it hasn't gone into a full-on death spiral already), and I'm not interested in engaging you on this point indefinitely. I'm not going to continue this subthread after this comment.
But according to you, I implied that rejecting evidence of God excludes the possibility of acknowledging the existence of that evidence.
However I made no such implication.
That's fine . . . I don't engage with people who strawman me.
Goodbye.